I could also change in "your system will brake, very very VERY much" :) I think that defaulting to 8bit makes sense, I agree with you. It will be more safer or, better, less devastating. Reading from a 16bit using 8bit will just confuse the eeprom that can return wrong values (usually 0xff). Writing just don't work or at least not on eeproms I used for testing. So I'll change to 16bit default as soon as possible (and I'll add a -16 switch). I was trying to figure out if there's a non-euristic mode to detect the eeprom type without writing to it but, before trying, I want to buy a new 8bit eeprom because I don't want to play with my dimm spd (that btw is not write protected)! I'll let you know. Thanks for the proofreading work :) stefano On Friday 28 November 2003 19:23, you wrote: > > __________________________________WARNING____________________________ > > ___ Erroneously writing to a system EEPROM (like DIMM SPD modules) can > > brake your system. It will NOT boot any more so you'll not be able to > > fix it. > > It's "break", not "brake" (also in some way I agree it does too ;)). > And "any more" is "anymore". > > > Reading from 8bit EEPROMs (like that in your DIMM) without using the > > -8 switch can also UNEXPECTEDLY write to them, so be sure to use the > > -8 command param when required. > > Wouldn't it be safer to default to 8-bit and have a switch to use > 16-bit addressing? From what you said, "reading from an 8bit eeprom > using 16bit addressing can actually *write* to the eeprom", but what > would reading a 16-bit eeprom using 8-bit addressing do? If it isn't > dangerous, I believe you should default to 8-bit addressing. > > BTW, isn't it possible to detect the addressing mode?
